Liquidation of United Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Gary, Matter of, 37A03-8806-CV-188
| Decision Date | 07 August 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 37A03-8806-CV-188,37A03-8806-CV-188 |
| Citation | 542 N.E.2d 211 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the LIQUIDATION OF UNITED SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF GARY, Indiana. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Douglas M. Grimes, Gary, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Samuel L. Bolinger, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant United States Savings and Loan Association of Gary brings a consolidated appeal from a liquidation proceeding. On February 11, 1988, the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions (D.F.I.) found that the United Savings and Loan (U.S.L.) was in an unsafe and unsound condition and in imminent danger of insolvency. The D.F.I. ordered the seizure and liquidation of U.S.L. On February 12, 1988, the D.F.I. filed a liquidation order in Lake Circuit Court. On that date the Lake Circuit Court stayed the D.F.I.'s liquidation order pending judicial review.
On February 16, 1988, the Lake Circuit Court granted D.F.I.'s motion to change venue from the county. On March 8, 1988, the Lake Circuit Court venued the case to Jasper Circuit Court.
On March 10, 1988, the Jasper Circuit Court assumed immediate and full jurisdiction, confirmed and appointed the D.F.I. as receiver, froze U.S.L.'s financial accounts and ordered the D.F.I. to take possession of all documents, fixtures and certificates of deposit belonging to U.S.L.
On July 13, 1988, the Jasper Circuit Court dismissed U.S.L.'s petition for judicial review.
U.S.L. raises the following issues:
(1) whether the Jasper Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction; and
(2) whether the Jasper Circuit Court erred in dismissing the petition for judicial review.
U.S.L. contends that the Jasper Circuit Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the liquidation proceeding. IND.CODE Sec. 28-1-3.1-4 (1988 Ed.) reads in part:
U.S.L. maintains that the Jasper Circuit Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction because it is not the county where the principal office of the financial institution is located.
On February 12, 1988, the D.F.I. filed notice in Lake Circuit Court, the county where the principal office of the financial institution is located. On February 16, 1988, the Lake Circuit Court granted D.F.I.'s motion for change of venue. Nothing in the liquidation statute confers exclusive jurisdiction to or prohibits change of venue from the county where the principal office of the financial institution is located.
U.S.L. asserts that the Jasper Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction over the particular case. U.S.L. claims that the D.F.I. failed to comply with Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 78 which states:
"Whenever a court has granted an order for a change of venue to another county and the costs thereof have been paid where an obligation exists to pay such costs for such change, either party to the cause may file a certified copy of the order making such change in the court to which such change has been made, and thereupon such court shall have full jurisdiction of said cause, regardless of the fact that the transcript and papers have not yet been filed with such court to which such change is taken...."
On February 15, 1988, D.F.I. filed for change of venue from Lake Circuit Court. On February 16, 1988, the Lake Circuit Court granted the change of venue. On March 8, 1988, the Lake Circuit Court venued to Jasper Circuit Court and ordered that the record be forwarded to the Jasper Circuit Court. On March 10, 1988, the Jasper Circuit Court assumed immediate and full jurisdiction. The change of venue complied with T.R. 78 and gave the Jasper Circuit Court jurisdiction as the receivership court on March 10, 1988.
U.S.L. asserts that the Jasper Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to confirm and appoint the D.F.I. as receiver, freeze financial accounts and take possession of all U.S.L.'s financial accounts. IND.CODE Sec. 28-1-3.1-4 and 28-1-3.1-5 (1988 Ed.) authorizes a receivership court to act in a liquidation proceeding:
"(c) The receivership court may hear and determine all issues and matters pertaining to or connected with the liquidation of the financial institution...."
U.S.L. maintains that the Jasper Circuit Court erred by vacating the Lake Circuit Court's February 12, 1988 stay order without notice. IND.CODE Sec. 28-1-3.1-5(a) (1988 Ed.) reads in part:
The D.F.I. provided the notice required by IND.CODE 28-1-3.1-4(a):
"[T]he department shall give notice by:
(1) posting the notice at the main entrance of the principal office of the financial institution;
(2) causing the notice to be served upon the president or other executive officer actively in charge of the business of the financial institution; and
(3) filing the notice in the office of the circuit court in the county where the principal office of the financial institution is located."
The Jasper Circuit Court as the receivership court by change of venue had the authority to act on the liquidation application without any further notice.
U.S.L. maintains that the Jasper Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction because liquidation proceedings do not constitute a civil action. In all civil actions, venue from the county may be changed. T.R. 76.
T.R. 2(A) provides there shall be one form of action known as "civil action." IND.CODE Sec. 28-1-3.1-4 (1988 Ed.) states:
Liquidation proceedings are civil actions subject to change of venue from the county.
U.S.L. argues that the Jasper Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction because the Lake Circuit Court did not grant U.S.L.'s motion to strike change of venue. On February 16, 1988, the Lake Circuit Court granted change of venue from the county. On February 26, 1988, U.S.L. filed a motion to strike change of venue from the county. The change of venue striking process had begun by February 26, 1988. The Lake Circuit Court did not err in refusing to grant U.S.L.'s motion to strike when the Lake Circuit Court properly granted change of venue ten days earlier.
U.S.L. contends that the Jasper Circuit Court erred by not transferring venue to Lake County or Marion County. On March 17, 1988, U.S.L. filed for change of venue from Jasper County. On April 4, 1988, U.S.L. moved that Lake and Marion be named counties for change of venue purposes. On April 4, 1988, the Jasper Circuit Court denied U.S.L.'s motion.
U.S.L. argues that IND.CODE Sec. 4-21.5-5-6 (1988 Ed.) requires that Lake County or Marion County has venue for judicial review of D.F.I.'s administrative actions. IND.CODE Sec. 4-21.5-5-6 reads in part:
"(a) Venue is in the judicial district where:
(1) the petitioner resides or maintains a principal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bayless v. Bayless
...to appeal an interlocutory order as if it were a final judgment results in waiver of the issue. In re Liquidation of United Savings and Loan Association (1989), Ind.App., 542 N.E.2d 211. Appeal dismissed. CONOVER and BARTEAU, JJ., concur. 1 An allowance for attorney's fees and expenses of s......
-
Schwartz v. Schwartz, 51A01-0108-CV-315.
...when it denied her motion to transfer the guardianship to Marion County is waived. See In the Matter of Liquidation of United Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Gary, 542 N.E.2d 211, 214 (Ind.Ct.App. 1989),trans. However, on February 12, 2001, Marianne filed a new motion for change of venue, which was ......